Flax Council and RR Flax development

[hlg]

Charliep I personally don`t disagree, but make sure it doesn`t wreck already fragile markets. It is a shame that Canadians aren`t smart enough to keep this development at home.

[parsley]

"problems"

You got it right the first time, charliep! LOLOLOL

I can surely get on a rant. I researched Cibus when Food Navigator came out last Friday, but decided I'd stick to gardening with Year II Resident gardener instead, the poor fellow, but when Terreluckyfellow posted this thread this morning,a bit ticked, too, I just couldn't hold the horses back. LOL I think you could agree that I'm not the mousey bland woman you thought I was when you met me in Calgary, right, charliep? LOL

You don't want to invite me to go canoeing with you this summer, either. Now, there's a spot of healthy advice for you. LOL Pars

[charliep]

Algonquin this year. Looking forward to it.

[charliep]

From an activity of this past month, plant breeders tell me that herbicide tolerance
is low hanging fruit on the biotech scheme of things - easy to do. Way off topic
but interesting to note this trait came on RR tolerance came off mutagenesis
(dealing with the plants individual genes without introducing from outside
material). I am assuming is possible.

Other traits are much harder to establish. Googling to remember (too tough to
remember for an old economist) but I remember the word homogeneity, barley
and being able to retain a characteristic in subsequent generations. This is in
normal plant breeding using tools (old and new) in the tool box.

[charliep]

For what it is worth, here is the Aussie approach to GM (in this case genetically engineered). Note the traits are not herbicide tolerance but rather starch composition and drought tolerance.

[URL="http://www.merredinmercury.com.au/news/local/news/general/gene-modified-wheat-barley-trials-proposed/1804308.aspx?storypage=1"]Gene modified wheat, barley trials proposed[/URL]

[charliep]

Actually if I read more carefully, nutrient (read nitrogen) use efficiency. The below are the OGTR documents on the controled release.

[URL="http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/new-index-1"]OGTR[/URL]

[parsley]

What you miss, imho, charliep, is that today's science generally lacks integrity. It lacks self-discipline and it lacks regulatory discipline.

Trust has become an issue with those who practice science as well as those who are accorded the effects of it.

Recalls. Information buried. Untruths. Lack of full disclosure. Class actions. Lack of decency.

Throughout the world, Governments and Industry partners together. Mistakes can compound.


Today's Science too often tells a funder what they want to hear. It often releases only the data the funder needs to further more funding.

Science, too much, has become an icon of smart people catering to rich people, instead of being just science.

The stakes are so high when it comes to food.

Corporations change their names on a moment's notice according to contingency plans put in place three years earlier. I researched too much to be blinded by dazzle and too little to understand the dazzle.

Shirking responsibility has become so sophisticated, you can describe it as a game; designer stealth.

If I said many scientists/politicians/corporate leaders are good people, I would be right, but I would also be wrong.

Should Good people close their eyes to wrongdoing such as science now fosters?

There are many people in positions of power who simply do not care about you or your family or about anyone. Period.

You will think I am dug into a position just to be difficult. (Hey, I embraced UFC!) But I gave it a lot of thought.

And I don't like what is happening to food. Pars